Brief Look At Jewish History Essays - Zionism, Land Of Israel

Brief Look at Jewish History The Jews are a people with a multitude of dilemmas. From the Israelite tribes to the prosperous modern day Israel , bigotry towards the Jews has been greatly evident. The Jewish race has acted as Escape Goat for many crisis throughout history including the black plaque which swept across Europe in the 14th century. The establishment of Israel was a great incident was something the Jewish people were striving to obtain for generations. This, however, led to four major conflicts between Israel and the Arab countries. One of the most meaningful wars was the Six-Day War. Events such as the holocaust have also had a dramatic effect on world history and whose mysteries are still being unravelled. For twelve years following 1933 the Jews were persecuted by the Nazi's. Jewish businesses were boycotted and vandalized. By 1939,Jews were no longer citizens,could not attend public schools,engage in practically any business or profession, own any land, associate with any non-Jew or visit public places such as parks and museums. The victories of the German armies in the early years of World War II brought the majority of European Jewry under the Nazis. The Jews were deprived of human rights. The Jewish people were forced to live in Ghetto's which were separated from the main city. Hitler's plan of genocide was carried out with efficiency. The total number of Jews exterminated has been calculated at around 5,750,000. In Warsaw ,where approximately 400,000 Jews had once been concentrated,was reduced to a population of 60,000. They, virtually unarmed, resisted the German deportation order and had held back the regular German troops equipped with flame throwers,armoured cards, and tanks for nearly a month. This heroism was similar to the revolt which took place around 165BC. This uprising was led by the Maccabees, a provincial priestly family (also called Hasmoneans). They recaptured the Temple and rededicated it to the God of Israel. The Maccabees made there last ezd on a mountain and was able to hold back the syrians for more then a month. There is a distinct similarity between the two stories and that is possibly why they are both recognised as holidays in the Jewish faith. These horrific events of the holocaust have let to some consequences which are beneficial and some are unfortunate to the Jewish people. The population of the followers has greatly declined. Also the Jewish people after the war still had problems finding jobs. They had to essentially start there life over. Most of them lost a close relative or at least knew someone who died in the gas chambers of the Nazi concentration camps. This has put a psychological strain on Jewish survivors or no longer having family and friends with them for support. This event has awaken the world up to the needs of the Jewish people. It has given them political power and a justification for some of their actions. On May recognised,1945 ,the end of World War II was seen. Organized Jewry in the European continent was damaged beyond repair. The Jews concentrated on the preservation of Israel and on the bringing of Nazi war criminals to trial. There is a day of commemoration, Holocaust Day, observed in Israel and elsewhere on Nisan (April) 19 and 20. The date is considered the anniversary of the beginning of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The emergence of Israel as a Jewish state on the former territory of Palestine was the central political issue of the Middle East after World War II. A movement was established to work on the reestablishment of the Jewish national state of Israel. This movement was given the name Zionism. The Zionists were full of energy,enthusiasm, and skill which led to remarkable accomplishments. Israel was a modern European state in an underdeveloped area. This was the source of there problems and their achievements. The Jews received vast amounts of financial and military support from Western governments. The Israelis also benefitted from a highly trained and motivated citizenry to create a unique nation-state. It had taken the Zionists seventy years to purchase 7 per cent of Palestine. Now the UN was offering them another 50 per cent. The partition plan was objected by all of that Arab and Palestinian Arab governments. The Zionists excepted the plan. They however were upset that Jerusalem was excluded from the Jewish state. The Jews were the most fertile land including the citrus groves upon which the Arabs depended on for their living. Many of the nations of the world felt guilt or grief of the Hitler era. This is

American Policy that Best Describes Response to Terrorism essays

American Policy that Best Describes Response to Terrorism essays Prior to 9/11, terrorism was just another key problem in American policy and different agencies were tasked to curtail its growth and influence whether it is domestic or international terrorism. 9/11 changed the landscape to the point of having an all-source, central governing body that ensures 24/7 monitoring, prevention and stopping of all terrorist activities. The agency is the Department of Homeland Security tasked to coordinate defense against, and responses to, terrorist attacks on U.S. soil combining border control and consequence management functions as well as a coordinating entity the National Office for Combating Terrorism with broad international responsibilities (Perl, 2003). By aggregating the counterterrorism and anti-terrorism functions into one superbody, the previous problems with jurisdiction and turf wars amongst the FBI, DEA, ATF and other state and local police, intelligence and law enforcements agencies were solve. Hence, American policy in combating terrori sts and terrorism responded with a centralized collection, investigation and implementation agency that ensures all avenues are managed to contain the global threats of this 21st century menace. By combining all its resources into a single cabinet-level agency, the U.S. administration has been seen to have instituted a swift, wide-ranging and decisive (Perl, 2003) action plan that best responds to terrorist threats. The campaign involved rallying the international community, especially law enforcement and intelligence components (Perl, 2003). But despite this noteworthy action, American policy should still look at the root causes of some of the terrorist actions against itself and its citizens. Some sectors in the society especially Muslims and Arabs state that; The method the American administration has used in the war against terror may have complicated the situation even mor...

In the play Death of a Salesmen What is Miller's definition of the Essay

In the play Death of a Salesmen What is Miller's definition of the American Dream What does Miller suggest that the Am - Essay Example Throughout the text Arthur Miller never openly states his concept of the American Dream, instead demonstrating fallacies surrounding this concept. Still, it’s clear that in considering the cynical elements in relation to their positive converse, one is able to articulate a concept of Miller’s American Dream. In one of the most crucial scenes in the play, Willy Loman asks his boss for a raise. In a desperate plea to convince Howard, Loman relays an anecdotal tale. He states, And when I saw that, I realized that selling was the greatest career a man could want. ’Cause what could be more satisfying than to be able to go, at the age of eighty-four, into twenty or thirty different cities, and pick up a phone, and be remembered and loved and helped by so many different people? (Miller Act II, scene ii). This is a complex statement. In some regards, one can argue that Miller is implementing a touch of comedic irony in Loman’s overly enthusiastic support for his t raveling salesman job. However, in another context the job represents for Loman a partial realization of the American Dream. In this profession he has found a meaningful means of procuring a living.

Among chronic patients what is the effect of acupunture on the use of Essay

Among chronic patients what is the effect of acupunture on the use of narcotic over 30 days - Essay Example Appropriate tools for conducting the tests and measurement of results should be available. The primary care settings are an important feature in this undertaking (Perry G. F., 2010). Treating chronic pain conditions with long-standing doses or prescriptions of narcotic (e.g., morphine), anti-inflammatory (e.g., ibuprofen), or other anodyne medications may provide a modicum of just a short-term relief. Initial dose titration and for breakthrough pain should limit the role of short-acting opioids. According to pain specialists and physicians, long-acting opiates should be the lynchpin of treatment if narcotics and narcotic treatments are used for persistent pain. The results of studies done raise an important questions when dealing with narcotic prescription; that is, are physicians well trained in treating chronic conditions or how well are they informed about the prescription they are admitting. In implementation of the treatment one take a sample number of patients and prescribe the m with narcotic treatment drugs and non-narcotic drugs to another sample. Having in mind that chronic pain involves more than just transmission of noxious stimuli persistently through the nervous system but also a high culmination of dynamic process and highly elaborate inextricably bound to the sufferer’s cognitive, social, psychological and cultural history; it would be essential to create an experimental sample of tests. Administering the drugs in correct intervals to avoid any error within the collected results, and considering the experiment has a time frame a drug like hydrocodone/acetaminophen (7.5/500) can be admitted to the patient twelve times a week; for severe pains. The experiment will use the nonrandomized controlled clinic trails with an adequate number of patients that will of comparable conditions. Efforts should be put in place to consolidate physical education and management guidelines about chronic pains and narcotic medication so as to incorporate it medi cal education and continuing medical training. Evaluation of effectiveness and facets of chronic nonmalignant pains in a patient should be the first evaluation procedure one should undertake before use of narcotic. Also the physician or pain specialist should have the appropriate care and measure tools to conduct the experiments. Understanding the current use and effects of narcotic drugs for chronic pains is also a prior practice the physician should undertake (Perry G. F., 2010). Before measuring the outcome, there should be an already available and clear medical review for the patients. The components of this review include; duration, location type, patterns and intensity of the pain; factors that intensify or reduce the pain; prior and current psychiatric and medical conditions; impacts of the pain on mood, functioning and sleep; the patients’ expectations of treatment; the previous use and prescription of pain medications; social environment description of the patients; patients’ history including the physical examination of both the patient and family history. After conduction the above measures then the medication is done, and within the specified period of 30days the results are collected and represented with tables and graphs if possible. From this information collected, the following outcomes will be measured; amount of prescription of the drug; also patient behavior after the medication, the

Corporate Governance Score and Firm Performance

Corporate Governance Score and Firm Performance Limited liability company structure is the most preferred structure for a large business. In this structure, a large number of investors provide the risk capital. They are called shareholders, the deemed owners of the company. They delegate the power to manage the company to board of directors. The board delegates the same to managers while retaining its role to monitor and control the executive management. Shareholders are viewed as the principal and the manager as their agents and this relationship is described as principal-agent relationship. The shareholders, of a widely held firm, practically do not have any control on the managers. They are only informed of the financial results on a periodical basis while the managers controls the firms assets. This structure provides an opportunity to the managers to expropriate shareholders wealth and misappropriate the funds by way of transfer of money as loans to his own companies, or sale of the company assets to themselves at a lesser pr ice or pay themselves more perks. The divergence of interest between the owners and the managers, due to the separation of ownership from control, results in the agency costs. It is not just separation of ownership and control that gives rise to the agency problem between shareholders and managers; but also the atomistic or diffused nature of corporate ownership, which is characterized by a large number of small shareholders. In such ownership structure, there is no incentive for any one owner to monitor corporate management, because the individual owner would bear the entire monitoring costs, yet all shareholders would enjoy the benefits. Thus, both the magnitude and nature of agency problems are directly related to ownership structures. The fundamental theoretical basis of corporate governance is agency costs. The core of corporate governance is designing and putting in place disclosures, monitoring, oversight and corrective systems that can align the objectives of the shareholders and managers as closely as possible and hence, minimize agency costs. It deals with conducting the affairs of a company such that there is fairness to all stakeholders and that its actions benefit the greatest number of stakeholders. There are two kinds of mechanisms to overcome the agency problem and hence, improve corporate governance viz., the internal control mechanisms and the external control mechanisms. Internal control mechanisms are internal to the functioning of a company and broadly consist of the board composition, the board size, the leadership structure and the managerial compensation. External control mechanisms are the mechanisms that are external to the functioning of the firm over which the firm has no control. An increasingly important external control mechanism affecting governance worldwide is the emergence of institutional investors as equity owners. Although the role that the institutional investors can play in the corporate governance system of a company is a controversial question and a subject of continuing debate. While some believe that the institutional investors must interfere in the corporate governance system of a company, others believe that these investors have other investment objectives to follow. The group of observers who believe that institutional investors need not play a role in the corporate governance system of a company, argue that the investment objectives and the compensation system in the institutional investing companies often discourage their active participation in the corporate governance system of the companies. Institutional investors are answerable to their investors the way the companies (in which they have invested) are answerable to their shareholders. And the shareholders do invest their funds with the institutional investors expecting higher returns. The primary responsibility of the instituti onal investors is therefore to invest the money of the investors in companies, which are expected to generate the maximum possible return rather than in companies with good corporate governance records. While the other group strongly believes that if the corporate governance system in the companies has to succeed then the institutional investors must play an active role in the entire process. By virtue of their large stockholdings, they have the opportunity, resources, and ability to monitor, discipline and influence managers, which can force them to focus more on corporate performance and less on self-serving behavior. Most of the reports on corporate governance have also emphasized the role that the institutional investors have to play in the entire system. Given the increasing presence of institutional investors in financial markets, it is not surprising that they have become more active in their role as shareholders. Activism by institutional investors has been both private and public, with the public activism being most visible in many countries. The role of institutional investors is visualized in two perspectives, the corporate governance and the firm performance. 7.2 Objectives of Study In light of the above discussion, the present study attempts to achieve the following objectives: To construct the corporate governance score To establish relationship between institutional holdings and corporate  governance score To establish relationship between institutional holdings and firm performance To establish relationship between corporate governance score and  firm performance In order to achieve the objectives stated above, the present study conceptualized the following null hypotheses for the validation of positive relationship between institutional holdings, corporate governance and firm performance 7.3 Hypotheses: H01: Institutional/its components Holdings and Corporate Governance score are  very closely related in a manner as to depict a positive relationship between  the two H02: Corporate Governance Score and Institutional/its components Holdings are  also very closely related in a manner as to depict positive relationship  between the two H03: Institutional/its components Holdings and various measures of firm  performance are very closely related in a manner as to depict  positive relationship between the two H04: Corporate Governance Score and various measures of firm performance  are very closely related in a manner as to depict positive relationship between  the two 7.4 The Sample Design and Data: To achieve the above objectives, a sample of 200 companies has been taken. The present study is based on the secondary data. It covers a period of five financial years from 1st April 2004 to 31st March 2008. Institutional holdings are further segregated into three constituents. The mutual funds being the first one. The second constituent includes various public and private sector banks, all the developmental financial institutions (like IFCI, ICICI, IDBI, SFC) and insurance companies like the LIC, GIC, and their subsidiaries. The last constituent comprise of foreign institutional investors. Data has been collected on the institutional holdings in total as well as on different constituents of institutional holdings from nseindia.com. The secondary data regarding annual reports to construct the corporate governance score have been collected from respective company websites and sebiedifar.com. . The firm performance measures have been divided into two categories, one being the accountin g measures while others are based on market returns. The accounting return measures include (%) return on networth, (%) return on capital employed, Profit After Tax, (%) Return on Assets, Net Profit Margin and Earning Per Share. Whereas, market return based measures include Tobins Q, (%) Risk Adjusted Excess Return and (%) Dividend Yield. Data for the study period on financial performance measures have been collected from Prowess Database. 7.5 Statistical Tools: Simple linear regression analysis has been used as a statistical tool to investigate the relationship between different variables. An attempt has been made to ascertain the causal effect of one variable upon another. Data has been assembled on the variables of interest and employed regression to estimate the quantitative effect of the causal variables upon the variable that they influence. The study also typically assesses the statistical significance at 5 percent level of the estimated relationships, that is, the degree of confidence that the true relationship is close to the estimated relationship. Section A 7.6 Construction of Corporate Governance Score Review of Literature Some researchers have used board characteristics as an effective measure of corporate governance as Hermalin and Weisbach (1998, 2003) have used board independence, Bhagat, Carey and Elson (1999) have used stock ownership of board members and Brickley, Coles and Jarrell (1997) have used the occupation of Chairman and CEO positions by the same or two different individuals. Whereas, Gompers, Ishii and Metrick (2003) have constructed a governance measure comprising of an equally weighted index of 24 corporate governance provisions compiled by the Investor Responsibility Research Center (IRRC), such as, poison pills, golden parachutes, classified boards, cumulative voting, and supermajority rules to approve mergers. Bebchuk, Cohen and Ferrell (BCF, 2004) created an entrenchment index comprising of six provisions – four provisions that limit Shareholder rights and two that make potential hostile takeovers more difficult. While the above noted studies use IRRC data, Brown and Caylor (2004) used Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) data to create their governance index. This index considered 51corporate governance features encompassing eight corporate governance categories: audit, board of directors, charter/bylaws, director education, executive and director compensation, ownership, progressive practices, and state of incorporation. In the present study, Corporate Governance Score has been developed on the basis of key characteristics of Standard and Poors Transparency and Disclosure Benchmark. Standard and Poors provides a range of corporate governance analyses and services, the crux of which is the Corporate Governance Score. Corporate Governance Scores are based on an assessment of the qualitative aspects of corporate governance practices of a company. Information has been collected on the attributes from the latest available annual reports of sample companies. The methodology, with 98 questions in three categories and 12 sub-categories, is designed to balance the conflicting requirements of the range of issues analyzed and the tractability of the analysis. Transparency and Disclosure is evaluated by searching company annual reports for the 98  possible attributes broadly divided into the following three broad categories: Ownership structure and investor rights (28 attributes) Financial transparency and information disclosure (35 attributes) Board and management structure and process (35 attributes) Resume Various researchers have considered alternate measures of corporate governance. Some of them have used single measure, while others have used the multiple measures in the form of indices. In the present study, Corporate Governance Score has been developed on the basis of key characteristics of Standard and Poors Transparency and Disclosure Benchmark because two broad instruments that reduce agency costs and hence improve corporate governance are financial and non-financial disclosures and independent oversight of management. Improving the quality of financial and non-financial disclosures not only ensures corporate transparency among a wide group of investors, analysts and the informed intelligentsia, but also persuades companies to minimize value-destroying deviant behavior. This is precisely why law insists that companies prepare their audited annual accounts, and that these be provided to all shareholders is deposited with the Registrar of Companies. This is also why a good deal o f effort in global corporate governance reform has been directed to improve the quality and frequency of disclosures. Section B Relationship between Institutional Holdings and Corporate Governance: Review of Literature Coombes and Watson (2000) on the basis of a survey of more than 200 institutional investors with investments across the world showed that governance is a significant factor in their investment decision. McCahery, Sautner and Starks (2009) have relied on the survey data to investigate governance preference of 118 institutional investors in U.S. and Netherlands. The study found that the majority of institutions that responded to the survey take into account firm governance in portfolio weighting decisions and are willing to engage in activities that can improve the governance of their portfolio firms. Chung, Firth, and Kim (2002) hypothesized that there will be less opportunistic earnings management in firms with more institutional investor ownership because the institutions will either put pressure on the firms to adopt better accounting policies. Hartzell and Starks (2003) provided empirical evidence suggesting institutional investors serve a monitoring role with regard to executive compensation contracts. One implication of these results, consistent with the theoretical literature regarding the role of the large shareholder, is that institutions have greater influence when they have larger proportional stakes in firms. . Denis and Denis (1994) found no evidence to suggest that there is any relationship between institutional holdings and corporate governance. They stated that if companies that create shareholders wealth are the ones with poor corporate governance practices, and then one really cannot blame the institutional investors for having invested in such companies. For, after all, a fund manager will be evaluated on the basis of stock returns he creates for the unit holders and not on the basis of the corporate governance records of the company he invests the money in. If however, one finds that companies with poor corporate governance practices are the ones, which have consistently destroyed shareholders wealth, then the contention that the institutional investors need not look at corporate governance records cannot be justified. David and Kochhar (1996) provided empirical evidence regarding impact of institutional investors on firm behaviour and performance is mixed and that no definite concl usions can be drawn. They argued that various institutional obstacles, such as barriers stemming from business relationships, the regulatory environment and information processing limitations, might prevent institutional investors from effectively exercising their corporate governance function. Almazan, Hartzell and Starks (2003) provided evidence both theoretical and empirical that the monitoring influence of institutional investors on executive compensation can depend on the current or prospective business relation between the institution and the corporation. They concluded that the monitoring influence of institutions is associated more with potentially active institutions (investment companies and pension fund managers who would be less sensitive to pressure from corporate management due to lack of potential business relations) than with potentially passive institutions (banks and insurance companies who would be more pressure-sensitive). Davis and Kim (2006) found that mutual funds with conflicts of interest (based on management of pension assets) more often vote with management in general. On the other hand, mutual funds have more incentive and power to oppose management in firms in which they have a larger stake. Marsh (1997) has argued that short-term performance measurement does work against the active monitoring by institutional investors. The performance of fund managers is evaluated over a shorter time period. Hence, they act under tremendous pressure to beat some index. So, when they find a case of bad governance, they find it economical to sell the stock rather than interfere in the functioning of the company and incur monitoring costs. Ashraf and Jayaman (2007) examined mutual funds trading behavior after the release of voting records. The study found that funds that support shareholder proposals reduce holdings after the release of voting records. Since the time of releasing voting records could be very far from the shareholder meeting date, mutual funds trading behavior after the release of voting records may be unrelated to the votes cast in the meeting. Aggarwal, Klapper and Wysocki (2003) found that U.S. mutual funds tend to invest greater amounts in countries with stronger share holder rights and legal frameworks (controlling for the countrys economic development). In addition, within the countries, the mutual funds also discriminate on the basis of governance in that they allocate more of their assets to firms with better corporate governance structures. Payne, Millar, and Glezen (1996) focussed on banks as one type of institutional investor that would be expected to have business relations with the firms in which they invest. They examined interlocking directorships and income-related relationships, and noticed that when such relations exist; banks tend to vote in favor of management anti-takeover amendment proposals. When such relations dont exist, banks tend to vote against the management proposals. Brickley, Lease and Smith (1988) found evidence supporting the hypothesis that firms with greater holdings by pressure-sensitive shareholders (banks and insurance companies) have more proxy votes cast in favor of managements recommendations. Moreover, firms with greater holdings by pressure-insensitive shareholders (pension funds and mutual funds) have more proxy votes against managements recommendations. The authors differentiated between the different types of institutional investors, noting the difference between pressure-sensitive and pressure-insensitive institutional shareholders and arguing that pressure-sensitive institutions are more likely to go along with management decisions. Dahlquist et al. (2003) analyzed foreign ownership and firm characteristics for the Swedish market. The study found that foreigners have greater presence in large firms, firms paying low dividends and in firms with large cash holdings. Haw, Hu, Hwang and Wu (2004) found that firm level factors cause information asymmetry problems to FII. It found evidence that US investment is lower in firms where managers do not have effective control. Foreign investment in firms that appear to engage in more earnings management is lower in countries with poor information framework. Choe, Kho, Stulz (2005) found that US investors do indeed hold fewer shares in firms with ownership structures that are more conducive to expropriation by controlling insiders. In companies where insiders are dominating information access and availability to the shareholders will be limited. With less information, foreign investors face an adverse selection problem. So they under invest in such stocks. Leuz, Lins, and Wa rnock (2008) found that foreign institutional investors prefer to invest in firms with better governance practices. In the present study, the analysis has been conducted in three perspectives: Dynamics of institutional holdings and its composition (2) Relationship between Institutional Holdings (explanatory variable) and the Corporate Governance Score (dependent variable) (3) Relationship between the Corporate Governance Score (explanatory variable) and Institutional Holdings (dependent variable) The major findings of the present study on the above aspects are summarized as under: The results outputs of the first segment depict that the institutional investors have increased their proportional holdings in the companies over the years. The number of sampled companies with higher institutional holdings has increased where as the number of companies with lower proportions of institutional holdings has decreased over the study period. Hence, institutional holdings have shown an increasing trend of investment in the sampled companies over the study period. As far as the dynamics of components of institutional investors is concerned, no specific trend is observed in investments of mutual funds. On the other hand Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies have shown declining trends of investments over the same period. Where as, foreign institutional investors have shown the increasing trends of investments in line with institutional holdings. The results outputs pertaining to the analysis of relationship between institutional holdings and corporate governance state that the larger proportions of institutional holdings have higher corporate governance scores in sampled companies and the smaller proportions of institutional holdings have lower governance scores in the sampled companies over the study period. Thus, very strong and positive relationship is established between institutional holdings and corporate governance. Hence, H01 is accepted. The results outputs of the section analyzing the relationship between corporate governance score and institutional holdings describe that the companies with higher governance scores have larger proportions of investments from institutional investors than the companies with lower governance scores. Therefore, very strong and positive relationship also exists between corporate governance score and institutional holdings. Hence, H02 is accepted. The inference can be drawn that institut ional holdings pre-empts good corporate governance still at other times, good corporate governance endues institutional investment in the firm. The results outputs pertaining to the analysis of relationship between mutual funds and corporate governance reveal out that smaller proportions of mutual funds holdings have higher governance score in the sampled companies and larger proportions of mutual funds holdings have lower governance scores in the sampled companies over the study period. Therefore, weak relationship exists between mutual funds holdings and corporate governance score. Hence, H01 is rejected. Alternatively, the results outputs pertaining to the analysis of relationship between corporate governance and components of institutional holdings reveal out that the companies with lower governance scores have larger proportions of mutual funds holdings to the companies with higher governance scores over the study period. Hence, weak relationship also exists between corporate governance score and mutual funds holdings. Hence, H02 is rejected. It can be inferred from the above outcomes that mutual funds companies do not observe good governance practices in companies and simultaneously, good governed companies also do not attract higher mutual funds investments. The results outputs as to the relationship between Banks, FIs and ICs and corporate governance depict that larger proportions of Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies holdings have higher governance score and smaller proportions of holdings have lower governance score in the sampled companies over the study period. Therefore, very strong and positive relationship is established between Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies holdings and corporate governance score. Hence, H01 is accepted. Similarly, the sampled companies with higher governance scores have larger proportions of Banks, FIs and ICs holdings to the companies with lower governance scores. Thus, very strong and positive relationship also exists between corporate governance score and Banks, FIs and ICs holdings. Hence, H02 is also accepted. The inference can be drawn on the basis of above results that Banks, FIs and ICs consider governance practices in companies while taking investment decision and alternatively, good governed companies also attract these investments. The results outputs pertaining to the relationship between FII holdings and corporate governance reveal out that the companies in which FIIs have larger proportions of holdings have higher governance score to the companies in which FIIs have smaller proportions of holdings. Therefore, very strong and positive relationship is observed between FII holdings and corporate governance score. Hence, H01 is accepted. Likewise, the sampled companies with higher governance scores have also larger proportions of Foreign Institutional Investors holdings. Thus, very strong and positive relationship also exists between corporate governance score and FII holdings. Hence, H02 is accepted. It can be inferred on the basis of above result that foreign institutional investors prefer to invest in firms with better governance practices and their investment do improve the governance practices in the companies. Resume The theoretical and empirical literature provides mixed evidence as to the relationship between institutional holdings and corporate governance. Some of the studies put forth the evidence that corporate governance is the significant factor for institutional investment decision and their significant investment improve the governance practices in companies, while the other studies state otherwise. Where as the research findings of the present study further validate, support and enrich the literature on positive association between institutional holdings and corporate governance. Likewise, the studies provide inconclusive evidence as to the relationship between mutual funds holdings and corporate governance. But the findings of present study state that neither the mutual funds care about the governance practices of companies or their presence improve them. Similarly, the empirical literature provides indeterminate evidence on the relationship between Banks, FIs and ICs and corporate governance. But the findings of present study observe very strong and positive relationship between the two. The empirical studies observe consistent results as to foreign institutional investors invest in better-governed companies but lacks evidence that their significant presence result in better governance. The findings of present study indicate that FIIs do not care for the corporate governance only, rather their higher stake ensure better governance too. Section C 7.8 Relationship between Institutional Holdings and Firm Performance: Review of Literature Pound (1988) explored the influence of institutional ownerships on firm performance and proposed three hypotheses on the relation between institutional shareholders and firm performance: efficient-monitoring hypothesis, conflict-of-interest hypothesis, and strategic-alignment hypothesis. The efficient-monitoring hypothesis says that institutional investors have greater expertise and can monitor management at lower cost than the small atomistic shareholders. Consequently, this argument predicts a positive relationship between institutional shareholding and firm performance. Holderness and Sheehan (1988) found that for a sample of 114 US firms controlled by a majority shareholder with more than 50% of shares, both Tobins Q and accounting profits are significantly lower for firms with individual majority owners than for firms with corporate majority owners. McConnell and Servaes (1990) found a strong positive relationship between the value of the firm and the fraction of shares held by institutional investors. They found that performance increases significantly with institutional ownership. Majumdar and Nagarajan (1994) found that levels of institutional investment are positively related to the current performance levels of firms. However, a less-stronger, though positive, effect is established between changes in performance levels and changes in institutional ownership. The results are based on a study investigating U.S. institutional investors investment strategy. Han and Suk (1998) found (for a sample of US firms) that stock returns are positively related to ownership by institutional investors, thus implying that these corporate owners are actively involved in the monitoring of incumbent management. Douma, Rejie and Kabir (2006) investigated the impact of foreign institutional investment on the performance of emerging market firms and found that there is positive effect of foreign ownership on firm performance. They also found impact of foreign investment on the business group affiliation of firms. Investor protection is poor in case of firms with controlling shareh olders who have ability to expropriate assets. The block shareholders affect the value of the firm and influence the private benefits they receive from the firm. Companies with such shareholders find it expensive to raise external funds. Studies examining the relationship between institutional holdings and firm performance in different countries (mainly OECD countries) have produced mixed results. Chaganti and Damanpour (1991) and Lowenstein (1991) find little evidence that institutional ownership is correlated with firm performance. Seifert, Gonenc and Wright (2005) study does not find a consistent relationship across countries. They conclude that their inconsistent results may reflect the fact that the influence of institutional investors on firm performance is location specific. The above studies generally consider institutional investors as a monolithic group. However, Shleifer and Vishnys (1986) as well as Pounds (1988) theorizations and later empirical examinations by McConnell and Servaes (1990) suggest that shareholders are differentiable and pursue different agendas. Jensen and Merkling (1976) also show that equity ownerships by different groups have different effects on the firm performance. Agrawal and Kno eber (1996), Karpoff et al. (1996), Duggal and Miller (1999) and Faccio and Lasfer (2000) find no such significant relation between institutional holdings and firm performance. In the present study, the analysis has been conducted in two perspectives: Institutional Holdings and Firm performance (b) Constituents of institutional holdings and Firm performance The major findings of the present study on the above aspects are summarized as under: The results outputs of the first segment indicate that there is no conclusive evidence as to larger proportions of institutional holdings in sampled companies have higher average return on networth or average net profit margin and smaller proportions of institutional holdings in sampled companies have lower average return on networth or average net profit margin over the study period. To the contrary, strong and positive relationship is observed between institutional holdings and return on capital employed as well as institutional holdings and earning per share. As the average return on capital employed and average earning per share are higher in the sampled companies with higher proportions of institutional holdings and lower in the sampled companies with lower proportions of institutional holdings over the study period. Therefore, it is stated that institutional holdings and two accounting returns (return on capital employed and earning per share) are significantly correlated where as institutional holdings and other two accounting returns (return on networth and net profit margin) are not related. Hence, there is no clear evidence that institutional holdings and accounting returns are related. Likewise, strong and positive relationship is observed between institutional holdings and Tobins q. But on the other hand, weak relationship is observed between institutional holdings and risk adjusted excess return. Therefore, institutional holdings and one market-based return are significantly correlated while the institutional holdings and another market-based return are not. Thus, the findings depict contradictory results as to the relationship between institutional holdings and market Corporate Governance Score and Firm Performance Corporate Governance Score and Firm Performance Limited liability company structure is the most preferred structure for a large business. In this structure, a large number of investors provide the risk capital. They are called shareholders, the deemed owners of the company. They delegate the power to manage the company to board of directors. The board delegates the same to managers while retaining its role to monitor and control the executive management. Shareholders are viewed as the principal and the manager as their agents and this relationship is described as principal-agent relationship. The shareholders, of a widely held firm, practically do not have any control on the managers. They are only informed of the financial results on a periodical basis while the managers controls the firms assets. This structure provides an opportunity to the managers to expropriate shareholders wealth and misappropriate the funds by way of transfer of money as loans to his own companies, or sale of the company assets to themselves at a lesser pr ice or pay themselves more perks. The divergence of interest between the owners and the managers, due to the separation of ownership from control, results in the agency costs. It is not just separation of ownership and control that gives rise to the agency problem between shareholders and managers; but also the atomistic or diffused nature of corporate ownership, which is characterized by a large number of small shareholders. In such ownership structure, there is no incentive for any one owner to monitor corporate management, because the individual owner would bear the entire monitoring costs, yet all shareholders would enjoy the benefits. Thus, both the magnitude and nature of agency problems are directly related to ownership structures. The fundamental theoretical basis of corporate governance is agency costs. The core of corporate governance is designing and putting in place disclosures, monitoring, oversight and corrective systems that can align the objectives of the shareholders and managers as closely as possible and hence, minimize agency costs. It deals with conducting the affairs of a company such that there is fairness to all stakeholders and that its actions benefit the greatest number of stakeholders. There are two kinds of mechanisms to overcome the agency problem and hence, improve corporate governance viz., the internal control mechanisms and the external control mechanisms. Internal control mechanisms are internal to the functioning of a company and broadly consist of the board composition, the board size, the leadership structure and the managerial compensation. External control mechanisms are the mechanisms that are external to the functioning of the firm over which the firm has no control. An increasingly important external control mechanism affecting governance worldwide is the emergence of institutional investors as equity owners. Although the role that the institutional investors can play in the corporate governance system of a company is a controversial question and a subject of continuing debate. While some believe that the institutional investors must interfere in the corporate governance system of a company, others believe that these investors have other investment objectives to follow. The group of observers who believe that institutional investors need not play a role in the corporate governance system of a company, argue that the investment objectives and the compensation system in the institutional investing companies often discourage their active participation in the corporate governance system of the companies. Institutional investors are answerable to their investors the way the companies (in which they have invested) are answerable to their shareholders. And the shareholders do invest their funds with the institutional investors expecting higher returns. The primary responsibility of the instituti onal investors is therefore to invest the money of the investors in companies, which are expected to generate the maximum possible return rather than in companies with good corporate governance records. While the other group strongly believes that if the corporate governance system in the companies has to succeed then the institutional investors must play an active role in the entire process. By virtue of their large stockholdings, they have the opportunity, resources, and ability to monitor, discipline and influence managers, which can force them to focus more on corporate performance and less on self-serving behavior. Most of the reports on corporate governance have also emphasized the role that the institutional investors have to play in the entire system. Given the increasing presence of institutional investors in financial markets, it is not surprising that they have become more active in their role as shareholders. Activism by institutional investors has been both private and public, with the public activism being most visible in many countries. The role of institutional investors is visualized in two perspectives, the corporate governance and the firm performance. 7.2 Objectives of Study In light of the above discussion, the present study attempts to achieve the following objectives: To construct the corporate governance score To establish relationship between institutional holdings and corporate  governance score To establish relationship between institutional holdings and firm performance To establish relationship between corporate governance score and  firm performance In order to achieve the objectives stated above, the present study conceptualized the following null hypotheses for the validation of positive relationship between institutional holdings, corporate governance and firm performance 7.3 Hypotheses: H01: Institutional/its components Holdings and Corporate Governance score are  very closely related in a manner as to depict a positive relationship between  the two H02: Corporate Governance Score and Institutional/its components Holdings are  also very closely related in a manner as to depict positive relationship  between the two H03: Institutional/its components Holdings and various measures of firm  performance are very closely related in a manner as to depict  positive relationship between the two H04: Corporate Governance Score and various measures of firm performance  are very closely related in a manner as to depict positive relationship between  the two 7.4 The Sample Design and Data: To achieve the above objectives, a sample of 200 companies has been taken. The present study is based on the secondary data. It covers a period of five financial years from 1st April 2004 to 31st March 2008. Institutional holdings are further segregated into three constituents. The mutual funds being the first one. The second constituent includes various public and private sector banks, all the developmental financial institutions (like IFCI, ICICI, IDBI, SFC) and insurance companies like the LIC, GIC, and their subsidiaries. The last constituent comprise of foreign institutional investors. Data has been collected on the institutional holdings in total as well as on different constituents of institutional holdings from nseindia.com. The secondary data regarding annual reports to construct the corporate governance score have been collected from respective company websites and sebiedifar.com. . The firm performance measures have been divided into two categories, one being the accountin g measures while others are based on market returns. The accounting return measures include (%) return on networth, (%) return on capital employed, Profit After Tax, (%) Return on Assets, Net Profit Margin and Earning Per Share. Whereas, market return based measures include Tobins Q, (%) Risk Adjusted Excess Return and (%) Dividend Yield. Data for the study period on financial performance measures have been collected from Prowess Database. 7.5 Statistical Tools: Simple linear regression analysis has been used as a statistical tool to investigate the relationship between different variables. An attempt has been made to ascertain the causal effect of one variable upon another. Data has been assembled on the variables of interest and employed regression to estimate the quantitative effect of the causal variables upon the variable that they influence. The study also typically assesses the statistical significance at 5 percent level of the estimated relationships, that is, the degree of confidence that the true relationship is close to the estimated relationship. Section A 7.6 Construction of Corporate Governance Score Review of Literature Some researchers have used board characteristics as an effective measure of corporate governance as Hermalin and Weisbach (1998, 2003) have used board independence, Bhagat, Carey and Elson (1999) have used stock ownership of board members and Brickley, Coles and Jarrell (1997) have used the occupation of Chairman and CEO positions by the same or two different individuals. Whereas, Gompers, Ishii and Metrick (2003) have constructed a governance measure comprising of an equally weighted index of 24 corporate governance provisions compiled by the Investor Responsibility Research Center (IRRC), such as, poison pills, golden parachutes, classified boards, cumulative voting, and supermajority rules to approve mergers. Bebchuk, Cohen and Ferrell (BCF, 2004) created an entrenchment index comprising of six provisions – four provisions that limit Shareholder rights and two that make potential hostile takeovers more difficult. While the above noted studies use IRRC data, Brown and Caylor (2004) used Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) data to create their governance index. This index considered 51corporate governance features encompassing eight corporate governance categories: audit, board of directors, charter/bylaws, director education, executive and director compensation, ownership, progressive practices, and state of incorporation. In the present study, Corporate Governance Score has been developed on the basis of key characteristics of Standard and Poors Transparency and Disclosure Benchmark. Standard and Poors provides a range of corporate governance analyses and services, the crux of which is the Corporate Governance Score. Corporate Governance Scores are based on an assessment of the qualitative aspects of corporate governance practices of a company. Information has been collected on the attributes from the latest available annual reports of sample companies. The methodology, with 98 questions in three categories and 12 sub-categories, is designed to balance the conflicting requirements of the range of issues analyzed and the tractability of the analysis. Transparency and Disclosure is evaluated by searching company annual reports for the 98  possible attributes broadly divided into the following three broad categories: Ownership structure and investor rights (28 attributes) Financial transparency and information disclosure (35 attributes) Board and management structure and process (35 attributes) Resume Various researchers have considered alternate measures of corporate governance. Some of them have used single measure, while others have used the multiple measures in the form of indices. In the present study, Corporate Governance Score has been developed on the basis of key characteristics of Standard and Poors Transparency and Disclosure Benchmark because two broad instruments that reduce agency costs and hence improve corporate governance are financial and non-financial disclosures and independent oversight of management. Improving the quality of financial and non-financial disclosures not only ensures corporate transparency among a wide group of investors, analysts and the informed intelligentsia, but also persuades companies to minimize value-destroying deviant behavior. This is precisely why law insists that companies prepare their audited annual accounts, and that these be provided to all shareholders is deposited with the Registrar of Companies. This is also why a good deal o f effort in global corporate governance reform has been directed to improve the quality and frequency of disclosures. Section B Relationship between Institutional Holdings and Corporate Governance: Review of Literature Coombes and Watson (2000) on the basis of a survey of more than 200 institutional investors with investments across the world showed that governance is a significant factor in their investment decision. McCahery, Sautner and Starks (2009) have relied on the survey data to investigate governance preference of 118 institutional investors in U.S. and Netherlands. The study found that the majority of institutions that responded to the survey take into account firm governance in portfolio weighting decisions and are willing to engage in activities that can improve the governance of their portfolio firms. Chung, Firth, and Kim (2002) hypothesized that there will be less opportunistic earnings management in firms with more institutional investor ownership because the institutions will either put pressure on the firms to adopt better accounting policies. Hartzell and Starks (2003) provided empirical evidence suggesting institutional investors serve a monitoring role with regard to executive compensation contracts. One implication of these results, consistent with the theoretical literature regarding the role of the large shareholder, is that institutions have greater influence when they have larger proportional stakes in firms. . Denis and Denis (1994) found no evidence to suggest that there is any relationship between institutional holdings and corporate governance. They stated that if companies that create shareholders wealth are the ones with poor corporate governance practices, and then one really cannot blame the institutional investors for having invested in such companies. For, after all, a fund manager will be evaluated on the basis of stock returns he creates for the unit holders and not on the basis of the corporate governance records of the company he invests the money in. If however, one finds that companies with poor corporate governance practices are the ones, which have consistently destroyed shareholders wealth, then the contention that the institutional investors need not look at corporate governance records cannot be justified. David and Kochhar (1996) provided empirical evidence regarding impact of institutional investors on firm behaviour and performance is mixed and that no definite concl usions can be drawn. They argued that various institutional obstacles, such as barriers stemming from business relationships, the regulatory environment and information processing limitations, might prevent institutional investors from effectively exercising their corporate governance function. Almazan, Hartzell and Starks (2003) provided evidence both theoretical and empirical that the monitoring influence of institutional investors on executive compensation can depend on the current or prospective business relation between the institution and the corporation. They concluded that the monitoring influence of institutions is associated more with potentially active institutions (investment companies and pension fund managers who would be less sensitive to pressure from corporate management due to lack of potential business relations) than with potentially passive institutions (banks and insurance companies who would be more pressure-sensitive). Davis and Kim (2006) found that mutual funds with conflicts of interest (based on management of pension assets) more often vote with management in general. On the other hand, mutual funds have more incentive and power to oppose management in firms in which they have a larger stake. Marsh (1997) has argued that short-term performance measurement does work against the active monitoring by institutional investors. The performance of fund managers is evaluated over a shorter time period. Hence, they act under tremendous pressure to beat some index. So, when they find a case of bad governance, they find it economical to sell the stock rather than interfere in the functioning of the company and incur monitoring costs. Ashraf and Jayaman (2007) examined mutual funds trading behavior after the release of voting records. The study found that funds that support shareholder proposals reduce holdings after the release of voting records. Since the time of releasing voting records could be very far from the shareholder meeting date, mutual funds trading behavior after the release of voting records may be unrelated to the votes cast in the meeting. Aggarwal, Klapper and Wysocki (2003) found that U.S. mutual funds tend to invest greater amounts in countries with stronger share holder rights and legal frameworks (controlling for the countrys economic development). In addition, within the countries, the mutual funds also discriminate on the basis of governance in that they allocate more of their assets to firms with better corporate governance structures. Payne, Millar, and Glezen (1996) focussed on banks as one type of institutional investor that would be expected to have business relations with the firms in which they invest. They examined interlocking directorships and income-related relationships, and noticed that when such relations exist; banks tend to vote in favor of management anti-takeover amendment proposals. When such relations dont exist, banks tend to vote against the management proposals. Brickley, Lease and Smith (1988) found evidence supporting the hypothesis that firms with greater holdings by pressure-sensitive shareholders (banks and insurance companies) have more proxy votes cast in favor of managements recommendations. Moreover, firms with greater holdings by pressure-insensitive shareholders (pension funds and mutual funds) have more proxy votes against managements recommendations. The authors differentiated between the different types of institutional investors, noting the difference between pressure-sensitive and pressure-insensitive institutional shareholders and arguing that pressure-sensitive institutions are more likely to go along with management decisions. Dahlquist et al. (2003) analyzed foreign ownership and firm characteristics for the Swedish market. The study found that foreigners have greater presence in large firms, firms paying low dividends and in firms with large cash holdings. Haw, Hu, Hwang and Wu (2004) found that firm level factors cause information asymmetry problems to FII. It found evidence that US investment is lower in firms where managers do not have effective control. Foreign investment in firms that appear to engage in more earnings management is lower in countries with poor information framework. Choe, Kho, Stulz (2005) found that US investors do indeed hold fewer shares in firms with ownership structures that are more conducive to expropriation by controlling insiders. In companies where insiders are dominating information access and availability to the shareholders will be limited. With less information, foreign investors face an adverse selection problem. So they under invest in such stocks. Leuz, Lins, and Wa rnock (2008) found that foreign institutional investors prefer to invest in firms with better governance practices. In the present study, the analysis has been conducted in three perspectives: Dynamics of institutional holdings and its composition (2) Relationship between Institutional Holdings (explanatory variable) and the Corporate Governance Score (dependent variable) (3) Relationship between the Corporate Governance Score (explanatory variable) and Institutional Holdings (dependent variable) The major findings of the present study on the above aspects are summarized as under: The results outputs of the first segment depict that the institutional investors have increased their proportional holdings in the companies over the years. The number of sampled companies with higher institutional holdings has increased where as the number of companies with lower proportions of institutional holdings has decreased over the study period. Hence, institutional holdings have shown an increasing trend of investment in the sampled companies over the study period. As far as the dynamics of components of institutional investors is concerned, no specific trend is observed in investments of mutual funds. On the other hand Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies have shown declining trends of investments over the same period. Where as, foreign institutional investors have shown the increasing trends of investments in line with institutional holdings. The results outputs pertaining to the analysis of relationship between institutional holdings and corporate governance state that the larger proportions of institutional holdings have higher corporate governance scores in sampled companies and the smaller proportions of institutional holdings have lower governance scores in the sampled companies over the study period. Thus, very strong and positive relationship is established between institutional holdings and corporate governance. Hence, H01 is accepted. The results outputs of the section analyzing the relationship between corporate governance score and institutional holdings describe that the companies with higher governance scores have larger proportions of investments from institutional investors than the companies with lower governance scores. Therefore, very strong and positive relationship also exists between corporate governance score and institutional holdings. Hence, H02 is accepted. The inference can be drawn that institut ional holdings pre-empts good corporate governance still at other times, good corporate governance endues institutional investment in the firm. The results outputs pertaining to the analysis of relationship between mutual funds and corporate governance reveal out that smaller proportions of mutual funds holdings have higher governance score in the sampled companies and larger proportions of mutual funds holdings have lower governance scores in the sampled companies over the study period. Therefore, weak relationship exists between mutual funds holdings and corporate governance score. Hence, H01 is rejected. Alternatively, the results outputs pertaining to the analysis of relationship between corporate governance and components of institutional holdings reveal out that the companies with lower governance scores have larger proportions of mutual funds holdings to the companies with higher governance scores over the study period. Hence, weak relationship also exists between corporate governance score and mutual funds holdings. Hence, H02 is rejected. It can be inferred from the above outcomes that mutual funds companies do not observe good governance practices in companies and simultaneously, good governed companies also do not attract higher mutual funds investments. The results outputs as to the relationship between Banks, FIs and ICs and corporate governance depict that larger proportions of Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies holdings have higher governance score and smaller proportions of holdings have lower governance score in the sampled companies over the study period. Therefore, very strong and positive relationship is established between Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies holdings and corporate governance score. Hence, H01 is accepted. Similarly, the sampled companies with higher governance scores have larger proportions of Banks, FIs and ICs holdings to the companies with lower governance scores. Thus, very strong and positive relationship also exists between corporate governance score and Banks, FIs and ICs holdings. Hence, H02 is also accepted. The inference can be drawn on the basis of above results that Banks, FIs and ICs consider governance practices in companies while taking investment decision and alternatively, good governed companies also attract these investments. The results outputs pertaining to the relationship between FII holdings and corporate governance reveal out that the companies in which FIIs have larger proportions of holdings have higher governance score to the companies in which FIIs have smaller proportions of holdings. Therefore, very strong and positive relationship is observed between FII holdings and corporate governance score. Hence, H01 is accepted. Likewise, the sampled companies with higher governance scores have also larger proportions of Foreign Institutional Investors holdings. Thus, very strong and positive relationship also exists between corporate governance score and FII holdings. Hence, H02 is accepted. It can be inferred on the basis of above result that foreign institutional investors prefer to invest in firms with better governance practices and their investment do improve the governance practices in the companies. Resume The theoretical and empirical literature provides mixed evidence as to the relationship between institutional holdings and corporate governance. Some of the studies put forth the evidence that corporate governance is the significant factor for institutional investment decision and their significant investment improve the governance practices in companies, while the other studies state otherwise. Where as the research findings of the present study further validate, support and enrich the literature on positive association between institutional holdings and corporate governance. Likewise, the studies provide inconclusive evidence as to the relationship between mutual funds holdings and corporate governance. But the findings of present study state that neither the mutual funds care about the governance practices of companies or their presence improve them. Similarly, the empirical literature provides indeterminate evidence on the relationship between Banks, FIs and ICs and corporate governance. But the findings of present study observe very strong and positive relationship between the two. The empirical studies observe consistent results as to foreign institutional investors invest in better-governed companies but lacks evidence that their significant presence result in better governance. The findings of present study indicate that FIIs do not care for the corporate governance only, rather their higher stake ensure better governance too. Section C 7.8 Relationship between Institutional Holdings and Firm Performance: Review of Literature Pound (1988) explored the influence of institutional ownerships on firm performance and proposed three hypotheses on the relation between institutional shareholders and firm performance: efficient-monitoring hypothesis, conflict-of-interest hypothesis, and strategic-alignment hypothesis. The efficient-monitoring hypothesis says that institutional investors have greater expertise and can monitor management at lower cost than the small atomistic shareholders. Consequently, this argument predicts a positive relationship between institutional shareholding and firm performance. Holderness and Sheehan (1988) found that for a sample of 114 US firms controlled by a majority shareholder with more than 50% of shares, both Tobins Q and accounting profits are significantly lower for firms with individual majority owners than for firms with corporate majority owners. McConnell and Servaes (1990) found a strong positive relationship between the value of the firm and the fraction of shares held by institutional investors. They found that performance increases significantly with institutional ownership. Majumdar and Nagarajan (1994) found that levels of institutional investment are positively related to the current performance levels of firms. However, a less-stronger, though positive, effect is established between changes in performance levels and changes in institutional ownership. The results are based on a study investigating U.S. institutional investors investment strategy. Han and Suk (1998) found (for a sample of US firms) that stock returns are positively related to ownership by institutional investors, thus implying that these corporate owners are actively involved in the monitoring of incumbent management. Douma, Rejie and Kabir (2006) investigated the impact of foreign institutional investment on the performance of emerging market firms and found that there is positive effect of foreign ownership on firm performance. They also found impact of foreign investment on the business group affiliation of firms. Investor protection is poor in case of firms with controlling shareh olders who have ability to expropriate assets. The block shareholders affect the value of the firm and influence the private benefits they receive from the firm. Companies with such shareholders find it expensive to raise external funds. Studies examining the relationship between institutional holdings and firm performance in different countries (mainly OECD countries) have produced mixed results. Chaganti and Damanpour (1991) and Lowenstein (1991) find little evidence that institutional ownership is correlated with firm performance. Seifert, Gonenc and Wright (2005) study does not find a consistent relationship across countries. They conclude that their inconsistent results may reflect the fact that the influence of institutional investors on firm performance is location specific. The above studies generally consider institutional investors as a monolithic group. However, Shleifer and Vishnys (1986) as well as Pounds (1988) theorizations and later empirical examinations by McConnell and Servaes (1990) suggest that shareholders are differentiable and pursue different agendas. Jensen and Merkling (1976) also show that equity ownerships by different groups have different effects on the firm performance. Agrawal and Kno eber (1996), Karpoff et al. (1996), Duggal and Miller (1999) and Faccio and Lasfer (2000) find no such significant relation between institutional holdings and firm performance. In the present study, the analysis has been conducted in two perspectives: Institutional Holdings and Firm performance (b) Constituents of institutional holdings and Firm performance The major findings of the present study on the above aspects are summarized as under: The results outputs of the first segment indicate that there is no conclusive evidence as to larger proportions of institutional holdings in sampled companies have higher average return on networth or average net profit margin and smaller proportions of institutional holdings in sampled companies have lower average return on networth or average net profit margin over the study period. To the contrary, strong and positive relationship is observed between institutional holdings and return on capital employed as well as institutional holdings and earning per share. As the average return on capital employed and average earning per share are higher in the sampled companies with higher proportions of institutional holdings and lower in the sampled companies with lower proportions of institutional holdings over the study period. Therefore, it is stated that institutional holdings and two accounting returns (return on capital employed and earning per share) are significantly correlated where as institutional holdings and other two accounting returns (return on networth and net profit margin) are not related. Hence, there is no clear evidence that institutional holdings and accounting returns are related. Likewise, strong and positive relationship is observed between institutional holdings and Tobins q. But on the other hand, weak relationship is observed between institutional holdings and risk adjusted excess return. Therefore, institutional holdings and one market-based return are significantly correlated while the institutional holdings and another market-based return are not. Thus, the findings depict contradictory results as to the relationship between institutional holdings and market

Irene Hickman’s Mind Probe Hypnosis

This book is about the various aspects regarding hypnosis. Hypnosis, the manipulation of the human mind by another entity is slowly going mainstream, reaching the people and making good use of it. It has been long ignored and now it becomes useful to professionals in treating various disorders of people. This book clearly show the different kinds of scenarios that you get when you explore a person’s mid. It also shows how to go deep into the mind in order to discover things or experiences from the past that could be hindering a person to live a normal life. Thus, it serves and benefits people by easing their mind, body and emotions. The author covers issues birth and death, problems of allergies, the use of fantasy and fact, and even treating sex problems. These issues were tackled on how the mind deals with tem, on how the subconscious mind is able to suppress these thoughts, if ever they gave the person a bad experience. This book is different from other books of the same type is that it doesn’t merely talk about how one should go back to the past and revisit his life before, but instead, to go back and be able to know the origin of a certain problem he is currently facing in the present time. The cases found in this book are all very useful and informative, wherein it describes their experiences with their subconscious, thus a very good guide for professionals and those who practice hypnosis. The author covers a wide scope in the aspect of hypnosis. It deals on how people’s fear could have its roots in the previous events in his life, wherein he suffered a great deal of pain or hardship which led to what he is experiencing now. Hypnosis touches on how to deal with one’s fears and problems primarily from recognizing them, and acknowledging its existence. I think the most effective method of the author is the allergy-suppression dialog, wherein a person who has an allergy can be hypnotized to reminisce his past life to discover the cause of the allergy. If the cause is found, the person hypnotized will be asked to go through it over and over again until he is not feeling and discomfort or fear towards the situation they had that led to the allergy. This is a very effective way in treating patients who suffer from bodily reactions without knowing the real cause. Even if they seek medical help, the medical professionals are unable to find the real cause of the allergies. This is when hypnosis is used as a means of treatment. An example of a case where a hypnosis session was used to cure an allergy problem is with a certain Marge Tellez, who suffered an abnormal response to cold water for a long time already. Any exposure to cold water was exchanged with a rather violent reaction from her body. When she drinks cold water, the inside of her mouth would swell, and when cold water touches her, her skin would become swollen and cracked, and was really very hard and painful for her. Doctors from various medical institutions were unable to cure her, and were considered a rare case. They tried to suppress her condition by giving her a daily injection of a drug, which seem to have worked a little bit. When she resorted to hypnosis, it was found out that in her past life, she had some various bad experiences with cold water. This includes a few circumstances that she was drowned or was nearly drowned. Another situation is that she was a galleon slave and fought their captain, and the most traumatic for her was a ship wreck which claimed the life of two of her kids. With those situations in hand, the hypnotist asked her again and again to describe and talk about the situations and asks her what she feels, until they reach the point that she wasn’t uncomfortable with it and that she doesn’t feel any fear of the cold water anymore (Hickman, 2002). Another case was with a certain R.S. He complained of a severe reaction of his body to cold weather. If though he wears thick layers of clothes and jackets, he would feel uneasy and uncomfortable. It was found out, using the same method of hypnosis, that in his past life, he has been lost in a blizzard in the early years of Texas and he froze to death. Another situation that sparked his fear of the cold weather is when he died from the cold during the time of the Romans and their conquests. His past life experiences were handled by the same process, through hypnosis and recognition and confrontation of the problem itself. Through confrontation, the problem was well taken care of and he eventually lost his allergy to the cold weather. It would be a very wonderful experience if you would be able to try all the possible means in acquiring a positive result, since you would know first hand which would be really be useful for you. I think the application of these methods will depend on the situation of the patient. There are some patients who have no reaction on a certain method, and if you would use another one, you would be able to obtain a result. I would prefer the process of going back to your past self in order to cure an allergy. Because of that, it enables the patient to be free of the restrictions which are brought about by the allergy he is having. If you eliminate the root, you are enabling yourself to be able to enjoy and live your life to the fullest without worrying about any allergies. It would depend on how you approach a certain problem. I wouldn’t want to avoid any of the techniques because they could have potential use to them in the near future. It will be able to teach us what we need to know and how we could go about on things. As a hypnotherapy’s practitioner, it should be known that hypnosis is very useful in relieving a person’s stress. It is a key point to have an idea as to what could be the cause of a person’s allergy. I would personally recommend the use of the process wherein you could be able to eliminate an allergy of some sort. Summary The book was able to convey a lot important aspects regarding hypnosis and being able to probe a person’s mind. It is very important so that you could be relieved of a stress or overcome a certain fear of something. Through this, man is capable of living freely, without the hindrance of theses problems, wherein man is the one that creates these problems. References: Hickman, I. (2002). Mind Probe Hypnosis   Retrieved January 20, 2007, from http://www.indiangyan.com/books/hypnosisbooks/Mind_probe_hypnosis/problem_of_allergies.shtml      

Cause and solution of environmental degradation Essay

Environmental degradation is not a new thing, it has been happening all over the world for centuries. The problem is that it is now occurring at a much faster rate, therefore not leaving enough time for the environment to recover and regenerate. Some of environmental degradation types are fossil fuel burning, waste disposal and deforestation. To begin with, the burning of fossil fuels by humans is the largest source of emissions of carbon dioxide, which is one of the greenhouse gases rise into the air and contribute to global warming, which threatens the health of the oceans and the diverse organisms living there. In order to eliminate this pollution, people would rather replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources such as wind power, solar power, burning waste and water power. It is achievable for everyone but fossil fuels are very limited and becoming exhausted. Another factor which causes environmental degradation is waste disposal. In commerce, businesses mostly use non-biodegradable packaging, which many years to decompose, to reduce expense extremely. Industrial waste often contains chemicals eliminating directly to the sea without treatment which can lead to the pollution of water supplies. Moreover, household waste such as plastic and glass bottle without recycling is buried underground possibly causing land pollution. To improve the current environment issue, Government should release a policy for businesses, factory and household to concern about waste treatment, which is often omitted because of high cost. Businesses should use green packaging which is easy to decompose gradually, waste treatment process should be installed in factories and citizens must begin to recycle goods and packaging whenever possible. Deforestation is one of the main reasons causing environmental degradation. It is an act of clearing forest in order to accommodate agricultural, industrial or urban use. If this deforestation is not stop or controlled, the consequence could be soil degradation and erosion, changes in climatic conditions and destruction of natural habitats. In order to ameliorate deforestation, the local authorities should pay attention on forest reservation, encourage local people taking part in growing tree campaign or build green belt around urban area. To sum up, environmental degradation is becoming more and more serious worldwide. Governmental and social organizations should contribute actively to help people acknowledge the important of environment conservation.